- Published on
Anyone who knows me knows a few things very well, as I've made no bones about 'em throughout the years.
First, I'm arguably one of the most enthusiast Star Wars fans I know.
Two, I rarely -- if ever -- get all that excited by announcements, trailers, casting news, etc. My two cents on those matters is that even the best actor or actress alive can kill a terrific script; so why get all jazzed about the finished product before I get to see the finished product?
Lastly, when it comes to all things George Lucas, I tend to cut the guy some slack creatively. Sure, he's pretty hands off at this point in the Star Wars mythmaking business, but the rumor was this new trilogy was launched off of an outline he provided.
So now the 'Interweb' is all ablaze over the announced name of the impending flick, and it looks like it's going to 'officially' be STAR WARS: EPISODE VII - THE FORCE AWAKENS.
Like I said, I tend not to make too much stuff of things like this, but I did want to sound off with a fundamental curiosity: when exactly could something like The Force go nighty-night? I mean -- it's an energy field, yes? One that binds us, penetrates us, etc., so how exactly could a universal thing like The Force go to sleep?
I know what the rumors are about the storyline (I won't spoil it here because I prefer to deal with things officially put out by the studio), but rest assured I won't be the first to suggest that with a name like "The Force Awakens" I've got a bad feeling about this.
JJ Abrams and company? Feel free to prove me wrong.
First, I'm arguably one of the most enthusiast Star Wars fans I know.
Two, I rarely -- if ever -- get all that excited by announcements, trailers, casting news, etc. My two cents on those matters is that even the best actor or actress alive can kill a terrific script; so why get all jazzed about the finished product before I get to see the finished product?
Lastly, when it comes to all things George Lucas, I tend to cut the guy some slack creatively. Sure, he's pretty hands off at this point in the Star Wars mythmaking business, but the rumor was this new trilogy was launched off of an outline he provided.
So now the 'Interweb' is all ablaze over the announced name of the impending flick, and it looks like it's going to 'officially' be STAR WARS: EPISODE VII - THE FORCE AWAKENS.
Like I said, I tend not to make too much stuff of things like this, but I did want to sound off with a fundamental curiosity: when exactly could something like The Force go nighty-night? I mean -- it's an energy field, yes? One that binds us, penetrates us, etc., so how exactly could a universal thing like The Force go to sleep?
I know what the rumors are about the storyline (I won't spoil it here because I prefer to deal with things officially put out by the studio), but rest assured I won't be the first to suggest that with a name like "The Force Awakens" I've got a bad feeling about this.
JJ Abrams and company? Feel free to prove me wrong.
- Published on
I’m not familiar with the work of writer Paul Ruditis, but if BATTLESTAR GALACTICA VAULT: THE COMPLETE HISTORY OF THE SERIES, 1978-2012 is any indication then I probably won’t be running out to pick up any of his incisive work elsewhere. Mostly this is because when I think of the word ‘vault’ and I’m imagining being ushered inside of one I conjure up the idea of all kinds of secrets big and small that really aren’t available to the general public at large. Sadly, this ‘vault’ feels more like an affectionate ‘valentine.’
Now – to be fair to Mr. Ruditis – there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. Little by way of scholarly work has been written about Glen Larson’s original late 70’s series (and he’s followed up that trend by really not offering up much fresh or new here) especially when compared to the media’s fawning reaction to David Eick and Ronald Moore’s post-9/11 reboot (of which there’s been plenty). Perhaps Ruditis surmised that throwing in some facts, tidbits, and asides to both Galactica 1980 as well as the Caprica spin-off series would represent something a bit different than what came before: well, the problem there is that most die-hard fans are more likely to wish those ventures forgotten.
To his credit, the writer scored some interview time with Larson, Eick, and Moore, though based on the reactions within I’m not all that certain their respective dialogues were all that frank or all that long. Basically, Larson recounts a few passing blurbs about the original – in fact, I’m not convinced he divulged anything ‘fresh’ in here as there was nothing that this enthusiast hadn’t heard or read else. It’s Eick and Moore that get the lion’s share of the attention, and why not? It’s clear that Ruditis has bought hook, line, and sinker into their spiel that they not only re-invented ‘science fiction’ but also ‘television.’ That kinda/sorta spins the truth a bit, but no doubt their fans will lap it up approvingly.
I guess what I suspected here would’ve been more behind-the-scenes details about what monumental effort it took to take such risks on these respective terrific series.
Now – to be fair to Mr. Ruditis – there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. Little by way of scholarly work has been written about Glen Larson’s original late 70’s series (and he’s followed up that trend by really not offering up much fresh or new here) especially when compared to the media’s fawning reaction to David Eick and Ronald Moore’s post-9/11 reboot (of which there’s been plenty). Perhaps Ruditis surmised that throwing in some facts, tidbits, and asides to both Galactica 1980 as well as the Caprica spin-off series would represent something a bit different than what came before: well, the problem there is that most die-hard fans are more likely to wish those ventures forgotten.
To his credit, the writer scored some interview time with Larson, Eick, and Moore, though based on the reactions within I’m not all that certain their respective dialogues were all that frank or all that long. Basically, Larson recounts a few passing blurbs about the original – in fact, I’m not convinced he divulged anything ‘fresh’ in here as there was nothing that this enthusiast hadn’t heard or read else. It’s Eick and Moore that get the lion’s share of the attention, and why not? It’s clear that Ruditis has bought hook, line, and sinker into their spiel that they not only re-invented ‘science fiction’ but also ‘television.’ That kinda/sorta spins the truth a bit, but no doubt their fans will lap it up approvingly.
I guess what I suspected here would’ve been more behind-the-scenes details about what monumental effort it took to take such risks on these respective terrific series.
See, the original came at a time when Science Fiction and Fantasy was essentially being ‘rediscovered’ by the general public, thanks largely to the successes of George Lucas and Star Wars, and one might think that Larson alone would’ve waxed on a bit more about that fundamental fact or maybe even Ruditis could’ve done his homework and found media critics and/or entertainment historians to comment on that trend, its evolution, and maybe even Galactica’s place in it. I get that perhaps the author didn’t envision his work to contain as exhaustive in detail as say J.W. Rinzler’s explorations of each of the films in the original Star Wars trilogy, nor as obsessed with minutia as are Marc Cushman’s first two volumes in the making of the original Star Trek television show. Honestly, Ruditis’s work here reads like a bloated Wikipedia entry alongside what Rinzler and Cushman pull off.
By contrast, Eick and Moore’s iteration introduced a whole new generation of fans to what Gene Roddenberry was doing in the 60’s with the original Star Trek – using TV stories as allegories about modern times, strife, and events. As much as they like to think they invented that, they really didn’t as SciFi has long been affiliated with allegory. While much has been written on the subject, it would’ve been nicer to see Ruditis pin the showrunners down in areas other than just terrorism and religion (which get some exploration), mostly because I think their Galactica did touch on more subjects. Either that, or Ruditis could’ve spent some time exploring why the critical media embraced the modern version of BSG but largely snubbed the original.
Of course, I don’t mean to imply that VAULT wasn’t worth the time. For the casual fan or even those of us who rarely follow the industry trades it reads just fine. It’s brisk and – despite the packaging – is relatively lightweight. As a plus, it does follow that publishing trend of throwing in two jacket pockets full of show-related reproductions suitable for hanging or merely impressing your friends. I’m a slow reader, but I soared through this coffee-table-sized tome in under two hours … and that just underscores how little precious jewels and/or hidden bonuses had been secreted away in this vault.
Lastly, methinks Ruditis could’ve explored in greater detail the number of failed reboots or restarts that Glen Larson has tried throughout the years. Having followed Science Fiction closely since the mid-70’s, I know that the man has said publicly on several occasions that he was actively engaged in these reboots; while the Bryan Singer attempt here gets some passing mention in the text, that’s all it gets. Is there nada in the vault about why it failed? I would think so … but I’m not the author.
RECOMMENDED. Not awful though sometimes composed with almost fawning admiration as opposed to a recounting of production facts, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA VAULT: THE COMPLETE HISTORY OF THE SERIES, 1978-2012 is a brisk read. It’s a largely uncritical assessment of the franchise, though there were a few barbs (understandably) about the lukewarm Galactica 1980. It certainly doesn’t break any new ground, but there are a vast assortment of sketches and some behind-the-scenes photos that detail the work it takes to bring the saga of a star world to stunning visual life.
Of course, I don’t mean to imply that VAULT wasn’t worth the time. For the casual fan or even those of us who rarely follow the industry trades it reads just fine. It’s brisk and – despite the packaging – is relatively lightweight. As a plus, it does follow that publishing trend of throwing in two jacket pockets full of show-related reproductions suitable for hanging or merely impressing your friends. I’m a slow reader, but I soared through this coffee-table-sized tome in under two hours … and that just underscores how little precious jewels and/or hidden bonuses had been secreted away in this vault.
Lastly, methinks Ruditis could’ve explored in greater detail the number of failed reboots or restarts that Glen Larson has tried throughout the years. Having followed Science Fiction closely since the mid-70’s, I know that the man has said publicly on several occasions that he was actively engaged in these reboots; while the Bryan Singer attempt here gets some passing mention in the text, that’s all it gets. Is there nada in the vault about why it failed? I would think so … but I’m not the author.
RECOMMENDED. Not awful though sometimes composed with almost fawning admiration as opposed to a recounting of production facts, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA VAULT: THE COMPLETE HISTORY OF THE SERIES, 1978-2012 is a brisk read. It’s a largely uncritical assessment of the franchise, though there were a few barbs (understandably) about the lukewarm Galactica 1980. It certainly doesn’t break any new ground, but there are a vast assortment of sketches and some behind-the-scenes photos that detail the work it takes to bring the saga of a star world to stunning visual life.